Abstract:
Does expertise within a domain of knowledge predict accurate self-assessment of the ability to explain topics in that domain? We find that expertise increases confidence in the ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena. However, this confidence is unwarranted; after actually offering full explanations, people are surprised by the limitations in their understanding. For passive expertise (familiar topics), miscalibration is moderated by education; those with more education are accurate in their self-assessments (Experiment 1). But when those with more education consider topics related to their area of concentrated study (college major), they also display an illusion of understanding (Experiment 2). This “curse of expertise” is explained by a failure to recognize the amount of detailed information that had been forgotten (Experiment 3). While expertise can sometimes lead to accurate self-knowledge, it can also create illusions of competence.

Abstract:
Intrasexual conflict may pose unique challenges for women. Whereas men’s aggression tends to be physical and direct, women’s tends to be relational and indirect, particularly when directed toward other women. Moreover, women’s expressions of anger are often suppressed, perhaps particularly when other women are the targets. Thus, women may face difficulty anticipating anger and anger-based aggression from other women. How might women manage this challenge? The functional projection of emotion may facilitate useful behavior; for instance, “seeing” anger on people believed to pose threats to physical safety may help perceivers preempt or avoid physical harm. Given the threats that women face, we predicted that (a) women are biased to “see” anger on neutral female (but not male) faces and that (b) women who are likely targets of intrasexual aggression (i.e., sexually desirable or available women) show an exaggerated bias. We report three studies that support these hypotheses and, more broadly, illustrate the value of a functional approach to social cognition.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

A remarkable disruption in the force. How anyone could understand
the complex rules of threat, deterrence, and protection as
"profit-maximizing" per se is beyond me. But it does illustrate how
bizarrely intellectually impoverished economics is as a field.

Abstract:
This
article estimates the effect of fighting in hockey games on attendance
in the National Hockey League (NHL) over the 1997–1998 through 2009–2010
seasons. After estimating a system of equations developed from a model
of a profit-maximizing club owner, it was found that fighting had a
small negative effect on attendance implying that encouraging fighting
on the ice is not a profit-maximizing strategy. The results are quite
robust when incorporating capacity constraints on attendance and
exogenous ticket pricing. Other factors that determine club performance
and market size were found to significantly affect attendance. The
empirical results also suggest that NHL club owners are maximizing
profit.

Look, folks, hockey fights, like stylized fights in the animal kingdom, prevent actual
violence and injury. Having specialized goons makes the game cleaner.
And, in equilibrium, there is less violence. Selecting on instances of
violence and then drawing inferences is not just a misunderstanding of
hockey, but a show of ignorance of basic game theory. If you have a
reputation for effective violence, you won't have to fight. And you
won't get that stick handle poke-check to your star forward's chest,
breaking his rib. Gretzky pretty much never got touched. 'Cause if he
did, there would be a fight. Gretzky wouldn't fight, and not because he was a pussweiler. Gretzky didn't fight because he was too valuable, TO BOTH TEAMS. Nobody wanted Gretzky hurt, and someone who hurt Gretzky was gonna get an ass-whuppin'. Knowing that, the "no violence"
equilibrium could be supported.

For a Canadian (and Duane Rockerbie is clearly a Canadian, eh?) to make this mistake is even more inexcusable.